"A private road just means the public is not responsible for maintaining it and that it doesn't have to meet the standards of a public way. It doesn't mean exclusivity." This is far from accurate. Private roads are usually privately-maintained routes along easements IN PRIVATE PROPERTY from public streets to private properties otherwise blocked from access to those public streets. Easements are meant to benefit the owner of the easement, not the general public, and the grantor of the easement can tack on additional restrictions to further limit who can use the easement. Private roads can also be just a dozer track through private property, with no easement, in which case you have no legal justification for using the "road" unless you have permission of the landowner to use their property. This fails the "common sense test", of course - if you see a dirt road, with no signs, and your Camelbak is still half-full, of course you're gonna check it out, and all but the most paranoid of landowners (and their lawyers) will understand this. If it's got a sign, however, the important part of "private road" is the word "private".

"A private road just means the public is not responsible for maintaining it and that it doesn't have to meet the standards of a public way. It doesn't mean exclusivity." This is far from accurate. Private roads are usually privately-maintained routes along easements IN PRIVATE PROPERTY from public streets to private properties otherwise blocked from access to those public streets. Easements are meant to benefit the owner of the easement, not the general public, and the grantor of the easement can tack on additional restrictions to further limit who can use the easement. Private roads can also be just a dozer track through private property, with no easement, in which case you have no legal justification for using the "road" unless you have permission of the landowner to use their property. This fails the "common sense test", of course - if you see a dirt road, with no signs, and your Camelbak is still half-full, of course you're gonna check it out, and all but the most paranoid of landowners (and their lawyers) will understand this. If it's got a sign, however, the important part of "private road" is the word "private".

CALIFORNIA CODES VEHICLE CODE SECTION 490:
“Private road or driveway” is a way or place in private
ownership and used for vehicular travel by the owner and
those having express or implied permission from the owner but
not by other members of the public.

It is also backed by common sense. "Private" doesn't mean "Public" by any stretch of stupidity. We've got enough problems as a mountain bike community that don't need to be exasperated by aholes breaking the law.

Can I post relevant codes? No, but I know a lawyer who can. She pointed me towards California Penal Code Section 602. Relevant parts (to cycling) are included below, as copied from the state's website. Your state's laws will undoubtedly differ. My notes are in {braces}, although some of those notes are from the lawyer, not me.

602. Except as provided in subdivision (u), subdivision (v),
subdivision (x), and Section 602.8, every person who willfully
commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a
misdemeanor:
{Snip (a) through (g)}
(h) (1) Entering upon lands or buildings owned by any other person
without the license of the owner or legal occupant, where signs
forbidding trespass are displayed, and whereon cattle, goats, pigs,
sheep, fowl, or any other animal is being raised, bred, fed, or held
for the purpose of food for human consumption; or injuring,
gathering, or carrying away any animal being housed on any of those
lands, without the license of the owner or legal occupant; or
damaging, destroying, or removing, or causing to be removed, damaged,
or destroyed, any stakes, marks, fences, or signs intended to
designate the boundaries and limits of any of those lands.
(2) In order for there to be a violation of this subdivision, the
trespass signs under paragraph (1) must be displayed at intervals not
less than three per mile along all exterior boundaries and at all
roads and trails entering the land.
(i) Willfully opening, tearing down, or otherwise destroying any
fence on the enclosed land of another, or opening any gate, bar, or
fence of another and willfully leaving it open without the written
permission of the owner, or maliciously tearing down, mutilating, or
destroying any sign, signboard, or other notice forbidding shooting
on private property.
(j) Building fires upon any lands owned by another where signs
forbidding trespass are displayed at intervals not greater than one
mile along the exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails
entering the lands, without first having obtained written permission
from the owner of the lands or the owner's agent, or the person in
lawful possession.
(k) Entering any lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence,
for the purpose of injuring any property or property rights or with
the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring any
lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land,
the owner's agent, or by the person in lawful possession.
(l) Entering any lands under cultivation or enclosed by fence,
belonging to, or occupied by, another, or entering upon uncultivated
or unenclosed lands where signs forbidding trespass are displayed at
intervals not less than three to the mile along all exterior
boundaries and at all roads and trails entering the lands without the
written permission of the owner of the land, the owner's agent, or
of the person in law
(m) Entering and occupying real property or structures of any kind
without the consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person
in lawful possession.
(n) Driving any vehicle, as defined in Section 670 of the Vehicle
Code, upon real property belonging to, or lawfully occupied by,
another and known not to be open to the general public, without the
consent of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful
possession.
{However, Section 670 specifically EXCLUDES human-powered devices.}
(p) Entering upon any lands declared closed to entry as provided
in Section 4256 of the Public Resources Code, if the closed areas
shall have been posted with notices declaring the closure, at
intervals not greater than one mile along the exterior boundaries or
along roads and trails passing through the lands. {Red-flag closures.}
{Snip a bunch of stuff, including "trespassing" in airline terminals, runways, and etc. Every bit as boring as you might think.}
602.8. (a) Any person who without the written permission of the
landowner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession of
the land, willfully enters any lands under cultivation or enclosed by
fence, belonging to, or occupied by, another, or who willfully
enters upon uncultivated or unenclosed lands where signs forbidding
trespass are displayed at intervals not less than three to the mile
along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering
the lands, is guilty of a public offense.
{Labor organizers, process servers, and surveyors are exempt. This is not a trivial section, as land (in California) is taxed at its highest potential value, which is far higher for residential land than agricultural land. Consequently, large landowners restrict huge sections of their land to "agricultural purposes" and run a few goats or plant some grapes on the property, and cut their property taxes by 80%. This is a transparent mis-use of assessment practices, but legally makes their land "under cultivation" or "occupied by livestock" and drastically increases the penalties of anyone trespassing on that land. Marijuana growers do not get this property tax reduction. I feel your disappointment.}

Penalty - Trespassing in California can be prosecuted as an offense, a misdemeanor, or a felony, depending on intent, impact, and history of the offender. It's usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail and $1,000 fine, but it's usually much smaller, like $200 and the judge chews you out. In special cases of trespassing, like you're a known violent offender forcing your way into a battered woman's shelter, it's a stone cold felony and you will likely spend upwards of fifteen years in jail. Trespassing in other states has different consequences, like agricultural land in Nebraska or ranch land in Wyoming are likely to be protected by much stronger anti-trespassing laws.

Whew! I need a beer, and I now owe my lawyer friend and her family a ride in Ahmanson. It was worth it.

the lady on the white horse (if you ran into her you know what im talking about)

Originally Posted by scvkurt03

I don't know you, per se, but I imagine this is very much the worldview of a complete and utter a-hole.

I guess it depends on how you read it. I think his point was that even if you are out with a generally courteous and respectful attitude and behavior, you're going to piss people off and there's just nothing you can do about it. So while you're doing you're best to think of others, you can't control their thoughts or behavior. And also I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it....people like me!

In no way is this any "official" City / SM Mtns Conservancy / Gas Co, etc. sign. None of these would use angle iron shelving material as the structure, nor would they pour about 6" deep concrete to secure it.

Now, I'm not saying weather or not what this sign says is true or not, as I do not know the answer. I do know cyclists have been riding this since the mid 80's however.

It does look like someone had a very serious collision with the sign, maybe it is too close to the trail? We can only assume it was a hiker or horse back rider that collided. Looks like dogs don't think too much of it either!

."...when your ride is nearly over, it seems to have lasted but an instant..."

Why wait until the criminal issues are dealt with? You may have a solid civil case against the alleged person who put you in fear of your life and/or assaulted and/or battered you...

Remember that it is sick and will continue to assault and/or batter and/or kill actual persons by it's crazed behavior. There is a very high probability that it's antisocial behavior will escalate until it is incarcerated or killed by someone that it is assaulting who is in desperate fear of their own life.

Yo, crazed & white horse riding alleged female human, I bet that you have been hoping that no one would point this out.
Enjoy.

I'm not here to argue the law and people need to get their own legal advice, but I can tell you that a "Private Road" sign does not equal "Private Property" or "No Trespassing".
If they want to keep the public out legally (ie have cops remove them) they need to put up a gate & a fence & properly mark the property as private property and trespassing as prohibited. The sign they have up on Old Ranch Road saying "Private Road" "24 Hour Security Patrol" & "No Park Entry" does NOT cut it.
Question for ScottR1 - Does your friend reallty think the sign they have up on Old Ranch Road entrance would result in someone being arrested for trespass? Really???

I've never been on Old Ranch Road, as maps and GoogleEarth show that it doesn't have enough climbing to interest me. I'm sorry, I don't even know where the access on Old Ranch Road is located. Parcel maps do show the lower end of Old Ranch Road is a private easement through private property, from Sunset up to 1740 Old Ranch Road, but that's just a legal description, I have no idea what it looks like on the ground.

Hey ScottR1 - It's probably unwise to comment on something you know nothing about. Here's pic of the sign from the street view on google maps.
You & your attourney friend need to do a little research on the differences between a "road on private property" and a "private road". In the meantime you should stop spreading misinformation that limits access for MTBers.

The City maintains a lot of roads on private property for things like fire fighting, access to radio towers, reservoirs, power lines, and other equipment. Because the City maintains the road does not mean it's open for public access.

That being said there is nothing on that sign that would indicate that public travel on the road is not allowed.

"Not dedicated for public use" seems to me to be a deliberate way of getting as close to saying "public use prohibited" as they legally could. If there's no indication of it being private property I don't see what the problem is.

Hey, bbbrad, don't pop a vein, 'k? How is copying and pasting sections of the California Penal Code "spreading misinformation?" Your photoshopped sign indicates property owners may try to limit access for park users, but it's not aimed specifically at MTBers, so drop the paranoia. The City's sign indicates the street is not for public use, so I, personally, who have some respect for private property, would (and will) avoid that street. Thanks for letting me know what the sign looks like, but I still don't know where it is.

Well lets just hope that they come back and say that its public, because if they come back and say that it is in fact private, you just sealed the coffin on the Horse Trail . . . .

What do I care . . . I don't even live near there any more

My main concern is that people can protect themselves. I'd hate to have her kill or seriously injure someone and then have the horse mafia somehow convince the gas company to restrict mountain bikers from the area.

This thread has turned into a circus. Wasn't it originally about a lady on a white horse who violated the rights of some people? Now you guys are arguing about the wording, location, and officiality of some signs?

Re: the lady on the white horse (if you ran into her you know what im talking about)

It was odd timing that I have been following this thread and the one about the lady with "bikes ruin trails" on her shirt - because my club has been flagging new trail and the other day we had our own crazy dog lady. Came up to us with a nice "oh, you're ones of those people" about the approval of us building trails there. Started complaining how our bikes scare the dogs and we are going to get bit... this was on the paved bike path which she mistakenly though was for the dog park and dog walkers. Her dog wasn't leashed either - against park rules. ignorant stupid people are annoying.

...Be careful what you're looking at because it might be looking back...

Re: the lady on the white horse (if you ran into her you know what im talking about)

Originally Posted by duggus

It was odd timing that I have been following this thread and the one about the lady with "bikes ruin trails" on her shirt - because my club has been flagging new trail and the other day we had our own crazy dog lady. Came up to us with a nice "oh, you're ones of those people" about the approval of us building trails there. Started complaining how our bikes scare the dogs and we are going to get bit... this was on the paved bike path which she mistakenly though was for the dog park and dog walkers. Her dog wasn't leashed either - against park rules. ignorant stupid people are annoying.

HA! It's the same crap all over. 2 weeks ago I was riding the trails while my wife hiked off on her own. She came across 2 others hikers, one of which was a woman that said "Hello fellow hiker who is NOT a biker." My wife just smiled and said "Actually, I ride bikes too." The woman's husband rolled his eyes and shook his head in embarrassment as they walked by.

It's funny because the local MTB club has their name emblazoned on every damn thing in the park. Even the sign at the entrance says the park is taken care of by the MTB club. But people still get pissed about bicycles on trails built by cyclists for other cyclists to bicycle on. What gives?

HA! It's the same crap all over. 2 weeks ago I was riding the trails while my wife hiked off on her own. She came across 2 others hikers, one of which was a woman that said "Hello fellow hiker who is NOT a biker." My wife just smiled and said "Actually, I ride bikes too." The woman's husband rolled his eyes and shook his head in embarrassment as they walked by.

It's funny because the local MTB club has their name emblazoned on every damn thing in the park. Even the sign at the entrance says the park is taken care of by the MTB club. But people still get pissed about bicycles on trails built by cyclists for other cyclists to bicycle on. What gives?

This is no suggestion towards any aggression, please be clear. But if any of you feel the threat of bodily harm from either:
Riled up horses due to her actions
Or
Horses out of perceived control on their own, it is (likely) well within your rights to use bear spray against horse and/or rider in self defense.
Just a random POV from someone who lives in bear country.

This is no suggestion towards any aggression, please be clear. But if any of you feel the threat of bodily harm from either:
Riled up horses due to her actions
Or
Horses out of perceived control on their own, it is (likely) well within your rights to use bear spray against horse and/or rider in self defense.
Just a random POV from someone who lives in bear country.

If there was ever a time for g0 pr0 footage...

I've read that using bear spray on a human is a big no no legally, if said human is trying to run you over with a 2000 pound horse thing may be different, but being cali I don't think you are allowed to defend yourself before the horse caves your skull in with its hoof.

I'm so glad the horses around here are used to dirt bikes so they couldn't care less about mountain bikes.

It's true, I think, in 16 years of riding here (near) the Tetons, I have yet to have one truly negative horse-rider conflict...except one ride I was on in the very early days of Teton Pass/Ritalin, (2001?) and that encounter turned into the beginnings of Teton Freedom Riders.

I've read that using bear spray on a human is a big no no legally, if said human is trying to run you over with a 2000 pound horse thing may be different, but being cali I don't think you are allowed to defend yourself before the horse caves your skull in with its hoof.

It is also a no no to shoot someone with a gun, UNLESS you feel not protecting yourself will get you killed or terribly injured. Everyone has a right to self defense of some sort, and I know of very little a human on a bicycle can do to protect oneself from a charging horse.

I think if a rider was to use a self defense spray of any kind on anther person or animal all they would need is a rightful fear for their own life to make a stand in court.

Thanks for posting that link Elkootcho. So horseback riders have allegedly obtained a legally enforecable prescriptive easement just for horses...Wonderful. But it's no basis to try exclude other user groups just because they haven't litigated it. Never heard of a prescriptive easement being able to EXCLUDE certain users. And the whole comment about how the easement was "for horse riders, specifically not bikers" seems very fishy - who was riding mtb bikes down Horse trail in the 70s? Marty McFly & Doc?
And who's to say a legally enforecable one for bikes couldn't be obtained in the same manner that the horse club got theirs? The trail has been in use by bikes for many years. Unfortunately if they put their gates up it will take a court case to force them to remove them, just like the horse club did.

The hypocrisy of the woman Mark Langton quoted on the CORBA website is quite staggering. Based on her 'bad apple' logic, the entire Sullivan Canyon area should be closed to horses because of the behavior of the 'bad apple' Lady on the White Horse. I have a feeling though that she's exempted her horsey ilk from her special rules.

And it's okay for horses to use the trail because they've been using it for a long time and it's easement. Mountain bikers are somehow different...how exactly?? Because they haven't gone to court to prove there's an easement for bikes/hikers as well as horses?
Oh and I'd really like to see that judgement from the 1970s specifically banning mountain bikes from the trail.

But the quote of day from the article on the CORBA website (apart from what a big effort it is to get off & on a horse) has to be "We are constantly sending workers there to straighten out the mess they make of the trail". So that's how the 1% does their trail work...send in the servants!

Interesting (and hypocritical) comment from Mrs. Nichols below. Taken from the NY Times article, printed September 4, 2005:

Originally Posted by Sara Nichols (2005)

Even in picturesque Sullivan Canyon, where horse owners pay for regular corral cleanups, a neighbor took Ms. Nichols to lunch shortly after she and her husband bought their house to try to convince her to board her horse elsewhere.

Enjoy being locked on the other side of the new gate! we are unbeatable!

The only possible thing that could go wrong, would be if someone were to keep putting superglue in the locks of the new gate, as we would be stuck on our side of the gate then. But no mountain biker has the brains to think of this! so we win!

Lots of outrageous BS in that link that Elkootcho posted but the most egregious, I think, is the comment about "bikers" (that's a common way to conflate cyclists with outlaw motorcycle gangs like the H.A.) doing so much damage to the trail, and never offering to repair the massive damage they inflict upon it. That seems to suggest that bicycles render a trail unfit for horse traffic!

Is Cobra aware of the lady on the white horse trying to kill/maim mountain bikers with her 2000lb beast?

I like how they say people are tearing out signs, but fail to mention that those signs are not being installed legally and how they do not sight actual law code violations on them.

I wonder how much actual trail maintenance the horse riding community does on those trails, it has been documented over and over that 2000lb animals do more damage to trail systems than a 30-40lb mountain bike with a 150-250lb rider do.

I find this entire thing very interesting and am eager to hear how the lawsuit involving the attempted murder of a mountain biker will turn out.

What is this CORBA? surely they could have rather made it use the letters COBRA

Coz Our Bikes Run Awesome

that's it, I am starting COBRA.

CORBA goes way, way back as the local mountain bike enthusiasts organization. They go back to a time when "all mountain bikes are banned everywhere on public lands" threats/actions. That is probably before most of you were riding.

As for the area, the residents have all the political connections and money to litigate pretty much anything in their neighborhood. For example, they will pretend the easement is whatever they want it to be and litigate as such. If they point their legal resources at CORBA, the legal costs alone would swamp CORBA.

I know there are some much nicer folks up there, but we don't get a chance to celebrate them.

I'd appreciate it if you and others would take this a bit more seriously as the residents have all the power and money to do as they please. If they get mad enough about mountain bikers, it would not be good.

So what gives do you have the photos and video or what, 12 pages almost a year later? is the lady from the CORBA post the same lady on the white horse.

Originally Posted by El Salt

I'm pretty sure this thread will go "back on track" once the still pictures, the video, the police report, (and whatever I'm allowed to share from my meeting with the city attorney) and the final outcome is shared. Right now this is still an active case being investigated.

rev106, I think you will realize that this issue was more than just some pissed runner / hiker / horse back rider, etc. once you are able to learn the full story.

There has been some completion* to the "case". It was suggested to me that I be very careful as to what I say and what I post because of the, shall we say, legal "condition" of the person known here as "the lady on the white horse". Her and her attorney did meet two times that I know of with the City Attorneys Office (I myself met one time in person, plus several phone conversations, as well as meeting with the LAPD detective assigned to the case).

I was given the option to pursue the case, which would have lead to a hearing in front of a judge, but it was suggested to me, by the City Attorneys Office, that because of certain "conditions" of the "defendant", and the fact that I had become aware of these conditions (over-heard though no fault of my own), that this condition(s) would skew or change the way the legal system would or could pursue any case. It was suggested to me that I not in fact say anything (as I am here) at all. Though because I know others have still encountered this person, I feel compelled to advise anyone that has interaction with this person in any but the most friendly manor.

* The case is not "closed" with the City Attorneys Office. So, the very best thing to do, if you were to encounter this person, AND have a negative encounter, is to document it (photo / video) and contact the LAPD / City Attorneys Office. If this person is "behaving" themselves in public then I (we?) have gotten what we want, but... if aggravated encounters continue the City Attorney wants to know about it.

In the case I documented, thankfully no one was injured, though it was the most scary encounter I've ever had with another person.

That's what I got out of it. Although, I could be wrong. It makes sense, if you consider her actions, doesn't mean I agree with it though.

It is totally what her attorney is advising her to do(Speculation of course). No one ever takes responsibility for their own actions, it is always someone or something else's fault.

I don't care if she has PTSD, there is no excuse for acting like that towards another human being, yet people get away with attempted murder all the time with these kind of lame excuses. If she really does have some sort of mental disability, then she needs to be locked up in a Hospital to protect herself and others. There is no way she should ever be allowed back on any public trail where she has the ability to hurt someone.

A defense of insanity is very hard to prove. Like I said a long time ago, she'll plead a lesser charge and it will be over with.

I'd think that insanity defense or no, it would be a fairly simple matter for the guy threatened, having audio and video evidence, to obtain a restraining order against her. Specifically pertaining to when she is on a horse. It would also take care of any firearm threat she may pose to him, as any and all firearms in her house would typically be confiscated for the duration of the order.

She's probably just got political connections. That's how I read it at least. There's no way anyone in a formal capacity is going to allude that the lady is retarded and that's a reason for dropping it.

If that were the case (mentally handicapped) there's probably good reason for her NOT to be riding a horse by herself around strangers.

She's probably just got political connections. That's how I read it at least. There's no way anyone in a formal capacity is going to allude that the lady is retarded and that's a reason for dropping it.

If that were the case (mentally handicapped) there's probably good reason for her NOT to be riding a horse by herself around strangers.

A horse can be just as dangerous as a firearm, so I'd tend to agree. Another factor here may be the automatic tendency of police to give cyclists, on road or off, short shrift when it comes to the protection of the laws.

My friend, who owns a bike shop here, has gotten hit twice in the last week, just riding along legally on the street. In both cases, motorists making sharp right turns in front of him, while he was riding in a designated "Bike Lane", caused him to crash. In the second instance, somebody called 911 because he couldn't get up right away (he broke a rib). Paramedics arrived, then cops. Cops stated that they could not see 'sufficient evidence' to cite the driver for negligence. Both times he was not running a stop sign, was riding in a designated bike lane, and was not riding at or faster than the speed limit.

Here in San Diego, if you want to get away with a random act of homicide, just run down a bicyclist. The cops will understand.

I'd think that insanity defense or no, it would be a fairly simple matter for the guy threatened, having audio and video evidence, to obtain a restraining order against her. Specifically pertaining to when she is on a horse. It would also take care of any firearm threat she may pose to him, as any and all firearms in her house would typically be confiscated for the duration of the order.

I don't think there's a problem with her running into and harassing the same person or her seeking out specific individuals. So, a restraining order is pretty much useless.

I don't think there's a problem with her running into and harassing the same person or her seeking out specific individuals. So, a restraining order is pretty much useless.

That's exactly when a restraining order would go into effect. She would be required, by court order, to keep X distance from the individual(s) being protected. She'd have to turn around and go the other direction, or violate the order.

That's exactly when a restraining order would go into effect. She would be required, by court order, to keep X distance from the individual(s) being protected. She'd have to turn around and go the other direction, or violate the order.

No, you don't understand, everyone needs to be protected from her. How is everyone going to get a restraining order?

No, you don't understand, everyone needs to be protected from her. How is everyone going to get a restraining order?

Maybe it would be a good idea if you guys made a deal with her in an effort to avoid/respect each others space....

Start a new thread here and have her participate. When she is gonna go out and ride, she can post it up as a warning. When you guys are gonna go out and ride, you can post it up as a warning. Seems fair to me.